Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 886–891 | Cite as

Volume of Excision and Cosmesis with Routine Cavity Shave Margins Technique

  • Julie Mook
  • Rebecca Klein
  • Anne Kobbermann
  • Alison Unzeitig
  • David Euhus
  • Yan Peng
  • Venetia Sarode
  • Amy Moldrem
  • A. Marilyn Leitch
  • Valerie Andrews
  • Sumeet Teotia
  • Roshni Rao
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Cavity shave margin (CSM) removal is a surgical technique that reduces re-excision rates. One criticism of this technique has been that negative margins are obtained primarily as a result of higher volumes of tissue removed. This study evaluates the volume of tissue removed in a group that underwent CSM versus one that underwent standard partial mastectomy (SPM) and explores cosmetic outcomes.

Methods

Single-institution retrospective review identified 533 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent PM. Matched pair analysis of 72 patients who had undergone PM with CSM versus 72 who had undergone SPM was performed. Volumes were calculated from dimensions in the pathology report. A subgroup was analyzed by a multidisciplinary panel for cosmetic outcome using the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Grading Scale.

Results

Mean tumor size in the CSM group was 1.52 versus 1.51 cm3 in the SPM (P = 0.8073). Mean total volume of tissue excised with CSM was lower than that in the SPM group. Mean volume of excision with CSM was 80.66 and 165.1 cm3 in the SPM group (P = 0.0005). Patients undergoing CSM required fewer re-excisions than the SPM group: 13 (18.1%) versus 25 (34.6%) (P = 0.03). Mean score for cosmesis was 2.3 in the CSM group and 3.0 for SPM (P = 0.0004).

Conclusions

CSM decreases the need for re-excision. Total tissue volume excised is lower in patients who undergo CSM, and cosmetic results appear to be improved. This approach should be considered for all patients undergoing PM.

References

  1. 1.
    Morrow M, White J, Moughan J, Owen J, Pajack T, Sylvester J, et al. Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2254–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson GR, Lesnikoski BA, Yoo J, Mott LA, Cady B, Barth RJ, Jr. A comparison of ink-directed and traditional whole-cavity re-excision for breast lumpectomy specimens with positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:693–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson AF, Asad J, Boolbol SK, Osborne MP, Boachie-Adjei K, Feldman SM. Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision? Am J Surg. 2008;196:556–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tengher-Barna I, Hequet D, Reboul-Marty J, Frassati-Biaggi A, Seince N, Rodrigues-Faure A, et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:299–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janes SE, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marudanayagam R, Singhal R, Tanchel B, O’Connor B, Balasubramanian B, Paterson I. Effect of cavity shaving on reoperation rate following breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2008;14:570–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, Yan J, Euhus D, Peng Y, et al. Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan SW, Cheung PS, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010;34:1447–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olivotto IA, Rose MA, Osteen RT, Love S, Cady B, Silver B, et al. Late cosmetic outcome after conservative surgery and radiotherapy: analysis of causes of cosmetic failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;17:747–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, Kuske RR, Philpott GW, Garcia DM, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:753–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost versus no boost” trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:667–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose MA, Olivotto I, Cady B, Koufman C, Osteen R, Silver B, et al. Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg. 1989;124:153–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HB, Schreurs WH, van der Veen H, de Lange de Klerk ES, et al. A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:109–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Schreurs HW, Cardozo AM, Rijna H, van der Veen H, et al. Ultrasound-guided breast-sparing surgery to improve cosmetic outcomes and quality of life. A prospective multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided surgery to traditional palpation-guided surgery (COBALT trial). BMC Surg. 2011;11:8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Mook
    • 1
  • Rebecca Klein
    • 1
  • Anne Kobbermann
    • 1
  • Alison Unzeitig
    • 1
  • David Euhus
    • 1
  • Yan Peng
    • 2
  • Venetia Sarode
    • 2
  • Amy Moldrem
    • 1
  • A. Marilyn Leitch
    • 1
  • Valerie Andrews
    • 1
  • Sumeet Teotia
    • 3
  • Roshni Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations